Wednesday, 21 October 2015

Alternate Best Actor 1995: Mel Gibson in Braveheart

Mel Gibson did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying William Wallace in Braveheart.

Braveheart is a film that's suffered in reputation over the years leaving even its qualities that should be unimpeachable, the production design, the costume design, the score, and the cinematography oddly forgotten despite their quality. Now I'll put it out there I think its an excellent film, and that Gibson's work in terms of the battle scenes in particular is probably more influential than given credit for. Of course Braveheart did do the worst thing that a film can do for its reputation, that's of course win Best Picture, nothing will derive quicker hatred than that. This is only compounded by being consistently attacked for its historical accuracy, something that tends to only matters if a person likes the film to begin with. I actually find that particularly baffling since the film itself states its falsehood in its opening narration. The idea of the film itself seems misunderstood when measured in accuracy as though the film itself is striving to be a historical document or even a realistic telling of a man's life. That's not the case in the least, although I would hope one would notice the fact that it is called Braveheart after all, its about the creation of a legend. The final nail in Braveheart's reputation as a deserved Best Picture though comes with its director and star who happen to be the same man.

Now Mel Gibson's personal reputation has suffered even more than the film's reputation, which I'll admit is more deserved than the film's loss. This has extended to making anything he's associated with, for some, to be blighted in some way, and has become a bit of someone to kick around an extra bit, even being Razzie nominated for The Expendables 3 despite giving the best performance in that film. This hatred can easily extend to his work in Braveheart as a director and particularly an actor. I'll start with what's easiest to be seen in a negative light in regards to this performance. I'll admit that Gibson has a very modern look about him that does not make the hair or the clothes to seem perfectly fitting for him. Then of course there is a matter of the accent which is an unforgivable point for some. Again I'm never an excessive stickler when it comes to accents to begin with, but I'll admit this is not clearly an authentic Scottish accent. Then again Wallace's accent, as told by his background in the film, which was living in all sorts of countries with his uncle, which actually would likely result in a slightly wonky Scottish accent, you know like Christopher Lambert's accent.

Well with all that out of the way let's examine the rest of his performance. Again Braveheart is not really about an actual depiction of the real William Wallace, but rather an image of him as a romantic hero. This follows suit with the way his early adult scenes are depicted as he just wishes to live a simple life in Scotland, but man those English just have to keep getting in the way. Gibson in the early scenes though just presents Wallace as a simple likable sort of man falling upon his usual charm in an effective fashion. In the tragically brief relationship between Wallace and his wife Murron (Catherine McCormack) Gibson realizes just the simplest of warmth and love in these scenes. The interactions between the two most certainly are not all that complex though they carry a natural sweetness that establishes the proper motivation for Wallace when Murron is swiftly murdered by the English. The scene where Wallace gets his revenge by taking the English encampment and killing is an outstanding moment for Gibson. Gibson does not just go through the motion rather he depicts the sheer intensity in Wallace of the moment, and the emotional quality in the attack. Gibson is especially strong just before he kills the man responsible for Murron's death, as the sheer hate, as well as sadness in his loss, can be seen in his eyes as he makes the killing stroke.

This sets Wallace on a quest for Scottish independence taking the fight directly to the English. Gibson does bring the needed presence for a man such as Wallace, and brings the necessary command as well as ease in camaraderie that would ensure Wallace's popularity as a leader. As the battles wage Gibson continues to carry the film and importantly never loses the emotional quality to his performance since it is never just a simple duty for Wallace to fight the British. Gibson realizes Wallace as the romantic hero he needs to be for this
film. With that though Gibson matches
any quality the film needs to bestow upon this Wallace. There are even a
few comic moments thrown in there which Gibson is able to quickly and
naturally just make them part of Wallace's personal style. There is even the other romance, which I think should prove the intentions of the story, which again Gibson delivers in bringing the right tender quality that does succeed in creating the relationship, and importantly a different one than he had in Murron. It's less true love and more of an eloquent understanding that Gibson realizes. The most pivotal aspect behind the man though is his unquestionable determination, which Gibson completely captures with his performance. This is perhaps best shown in what is probably the most noted moment in the film which is when Wallace rallies some fearful Scots into facing the large English army. Gibson absolutely brings the needed passion and persuasion into the speech, and the speech would not be as iconic as it is without Gibson's delivery which matches the power of the words.

Braveheart is an epic and Gibson matches the duty of carrying such, which I often find is an undervalued in appraisals of such performances. Gibson certainly never becomes lost in the spectacle of the film, and is essential in keeping the story grounded in the right fashion. The moments where Wallace recalls his lost love are made particularly poignant, and once again Gibson does so much within his expressions as Wallace, as the real weight of Wallace's personal losses is keenly felt. Gibson attaches what each battle means with his portrayal of Wallace's own vendetta but also his own belief in what is to gain from every encounter. Eventually Wallace is betrayed and captured by the English leaving only one last thing for a hero of legend to do, which is to die in a grand fashion. Of course this is made difficult through the level of torture that Wallace must endure in an attempt to break him. Again Gibson is fantastic in his portrayal of the scene. He certainly gets across the resolve of Wallace in the moment, but what's most remarkable is how he manages to amplify the severity of the scene. In this sequence Gibson, as director, actually stays fairly reserved shying away from the graphic details, but Gibson offers them nonetheless as an actor. This is seen best in the castration scene, which we do not see even a slight detail of visually, but we do not need to because of Gibson's reaction which is almost too effective. Gibson does not hold off on the pain in his depiction of Wallace, though still being convincing in keeping Wallace's refusal, and making his final words quite powerful by showing it to be from the last ounce of strength man has. This may not be a performance for everyone, but I think Gibson more than makes do with his own compromise, he actually had to play the central role in order to direct. Gibson as an actor and director go hand in hand in painting a compelling portrait of a man, not of history, but rather of legend. Now I know what the Braveheart fan will say who has lost hope "The haters are too many!". To that I saw, Aye, fight for the film and you may lose credibility in their eyes. Agree, and you'll maintain it... at least a while.
And lying about opinion, many years from now, would you be willin' to
trade all the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one
chance, to come back here and tell all those haters that they may take our
lives, but they'll never take... OUR FREEDOM....to love Braveheart.

I actually find there's a smugness to a lot of his work as an actor that I find usually tiresome. Which I quite frankly found to be on full display here where he allowed himself to run free with it playing a painfully obvious Christ figure.

Robert: Avatar is the epic that has that effect for me. If I see it again, I might even hate it. As for this one, Gibson is a 3.5 for me. Pretty good, but there are many other performances I like more. When it comes to the film as a whole, I liked it, but like Avatar, if I were to see it again, I might not like it. It stands as the fifth worst epic I have seen losing only to A Bridge Too Far (which I can't really remember), Avatar, The Patriot, and AD The Bible Continues (miniseries), which I hate more each time I think about it. Even so, it is my least favorite Best Picture winner, losing to the likes of Cavalcade. Yeah, I don't understand that either.

One of the most unfairly hated performances of all time, in my book. It's a performance that is pure, electric charisma, oozing with sex appeal and a larger-than-life screen presence that few modern actors can match. What, his accent is a bit dodgy? This guy spent most of his formative years traveling the known world, so I can forgive that. This is raw, unfiltered work from a truly mad genius. Gibson wanted Daniel Day-Lewis for the part, but honestly, I don't see how even my favorite actor could've been better for the role. His accent might've been a bit more convincing, but that's it.

"Braveheart" was my favorite winner for the last 20-odd years, until "Birdman" took flight. I am its staunchest defender and I am delighted that Louis didn't beat it down.

Robert: I am less stunned by your dislike of Braveheart and more stunned that you hated William Hurt in A History of Violence, I mean its frightening to think out of the 2005 supporting nominees who you would have chosen?

What about Galipoli, did you not like Gibson in that?

Psifonian: I agree that there is sex appeal in him in this movie, I mean I imagine one of the reasons most audiences loved the film is purely because of how Gibson looks, in the same way that a fan would fancy the main singer of a band, he is quite handsome in this.

Louis: I still think you were a bit harsh on Gibson for an equally passionate performance in The Bounty lol.

@RatedRStar: Hurt's work in A History of Violence is an overblown slice of ham. He makes his character a mugging cartoon in a film that really, really didn't need one. The fact such a self-indulgent cameo became the first Cronenberg performance nominated is almost insulting.

For the record, I more or less hate the 2005 Supporting Actor lineup outside of Gyllenhaal, and he's a very obvious case of category fraud.

@ruthiehenshallfan99: Technically speaking Dillon and Giamatti aren't bad, but they were far from worthy of being called two of the Best Supporting Actors of 2005. Giamatti's nomination was an obvious apology for his Sideways snub, and Dillon had the "juiciest" role in the inexplicable Best Picture winner that year. (Though I will admit I can sort of see the appeal of Dillon's work.) The actual winner, Clooney in Syriana, might be my least favorite winner in the category's history. Dull presence, lobotomized of charisma in a role that's supposed to be the audience's guide into the seedy world of the film. Apparently Harrison Ford was offered the role and turned it down, and my God would that have been a better choice. I've already made my thoughts clear on Hurt being an obtrusive sore thumb. As for Gyllenhaal, he is very clearly (in my eyes) the best of the bunch, but I can't get behind a case of category fraud so damn obvious. His nomination prevented actual character actors from getting nominated.

Michael: Segel probably won't overtake Damon and McKellen for me but I still loved him. If anything though Eisenberg might go up, I thought he was actually pretty incredible, verging on a 5 like Courtenay.

Thanks for bringing The End Of The Tour to my attention again. Completely forgot about that movie until you mentioned it here. Just got done watching it. Eisenberg is actually more of a shoe in for a 5 than Segel, at least for me, but I think both of them reach the mark regardless. Their performances were really remarkable.

Eisenberg has done some really great work in the last year or two. The Double, Night Moves, and now The End Of The Tour. He even elevated a very shoddy script in American Ultra. He's been on a nice little roll.

What was great about the two of them is that Segel gave a very mannered performance, and rightly so giving what his character was all about, but Eisenberg, who's usually a very mannered actor, gave one of the most restrained performances I've ever seen from him. It was a fantastic balance.

Yes, Eisnberg's restraint was really impressive, and Segel actually reminded me a bit of PSH in Capote: the resemblance to the real David Foster Wallace wasn't uncanny, but he beautifully brought out the essence of what made him him.

Michael: is it one of your favourite films of the year?

L Rime: Agree about Eisenberg, he's been giving consistently 4+ performances for me in recent years.

Well really I don't think he was miscast in either case, he perhaps just needed to try a bit harder. I really can't say some one else for Gehrig because Cooper, despite being much older, did have the right look. For York I'd say probably Melvyn Douglas.

I just saw Steve Jobs (for real this time) and wow was it a mixed bag. For the most part I actually really liked Boyle's direction, it did a great job keeping me engaged even though the film's structure very much revolved around dialogue. I also thought the score was wonderfully inventive and framed the themes of each segment quite well.

Going back to the script though...I can REALLY see the problems people have with Sorkin's writing now. The character of Steve Jobs stays essentially static for the first two segments of the film, and then in the third segment he has some nice development early on, but then really overcompensates in the last 20 minutes or so to the point where he's practically Ebenezer Scrooge trying to make things right with everyone before Christmas is over. It led to an ending that I found to be uncomfortably tidy.

Damn, Fassbender a 3.5? Bit worried now actually because Michael's tastes in performances often comes very close to mine...

On the other hand, glad you liked Daniels and Winslet. Also, even if Fassbender disappoints, he still has Macbeth. I'm actually incredibly tempted to move him over Hardy now (whose performance I'm ashamed to say, has kind of waned in terms of power over me as time goes by).

To be clear, I don't blame Fassbender at all for the flaws in his performance. The way he was written in the first two thirds of the film made it so he basically had to play Jobs as Lex Luthor, and that went on for so long that it was incredibly hard to buy the amount of warmth he had to portray in the end. He did do his best to realize Jobs's complexities where they kind of existed, such as his shame at being cut down by Wozniak and his relationship with his daughter (which was also handled kind of awkwardly in the script).

Louis: Do you think In A Lonely Place would have been better if it was directed by Huston instead of Ray? If he had directed it, I'm sure you would have liked Bogart's performance. Lauren Bacall and Ginger Rogers were also choices for Laurel. What do you think of these choices?

To answer your question from last review, The Gift and The End of the Tour.

Anonymous:

I do believe Huston likely would have made a better film and gotten a better performance from Bogart since my biggest problems with the film is how overdone the scenes are that allude to a possibly guilty Dix. Huston likely would have handled those scenes with more subtly than Ray. I think Grahame was right for that part to begin with, and don't think Bacall or Ginger Rogers would have fared better.

Peters - 1(I thought he was way too over the top in the role. I'll admit his speech does not exactly have a lot a subtly to it to begin with but Peters plays into that too much seeming like some super villain rather just a tough man putting down a rough truth that he believes.)

Also think that Wasikowska is Cirmson Peak's MVP. A 4 or 4.5 for me. As usual, I tought Chastain did not make the most out of the character. It was a fine performance, but definetly could have been great.

Just saw Polanski's Macbeth, and I really doubt Cotillard's Lady MacBeth is less evil than Anni's one. Lot of people say that the performance makes her Lady M the 'bitchless' one, but Anni's has nearly zero touch of evilness.

This may sound weird coming from me considering my aversion to histrionics, but Chastain could have afforded a tad more bug-eyed scenery chewing. That being said, the taste I got certainly was delicious.

Polanski's version: I loved it. It's not on Throne of Blood level, but his profane, increasingly violent approach is really remarkable. Using the voice-over for the intimate soliloques and monologues was a great choice, making the internal conflicts even more powerful. But if, on one hand, Polanski direction is superb, I think the actors mostly didn't follow his greatness. Finch's line delivery is terrific, but his body work didn't convey the madness with THAT intensity. Annis is pretty good, but a little too emotional, and since the beggining. She's supportive but not necessarily evil, and always looking she's on the edge of despair, even if hidden, which does not give an arc to her Lady M. Bayler as MacDuff is quite lacking - I think he didn't manage the great sadness and fury of his character, making me wonder Sean Harris may be A LOT better.

"Chastain could have afforded a tad more bug-eyed scenery chewing". Agreed.

Chastain: Differently of most of you, guys, I don't like Chastain work THAT much, Eleanor Rigby aside (which is a 4.5 for me). I always feel her performances don't make the most of the characters. This time is not different. Her obscure and mysterious side in the first half and the more histrionic one in the second were both not really remarkable, and it could have been. It's strange to describe, but what I mean is that I think she goes with the right notes, but doesn't play them with the necessary punch.

Hiddleston: He's convincing in every single aspect - the mysterious stranger, the seductive lover, the conflicted man between two (differently) beloved women, the a bit crazy one. It's a character that was not built to be the standout, and isn't.

Wasikowska: Yet again, excellent. Few actresses (only Cotillard and Mara that I remember now) convey with so much power internal conflicts using subtlety like her. And when it's needed to put subtlety aside and play that more emotional scenes, she (they) also delivers with strength (when she sees her dead father, for example). She's great not being the usually boring lead in this kind of film, balancing smartness, independence, passion and the necessary dose of naïveness.

Wasikowska was definitely the highlight for me, too. Hope Louis liked The End of the Tour :)

Went to a special screening of Suffragette today with special guests in attendance. It's vying with The Martian, Mr Holmes and Mad Max for a spot in the top 4; a beautifully handled, masterfully directed and incredibly important feature film.

Mulligan: 5 (amazing, amazing performance. She so effortlessly conveyed not only her character's transition but also all the little bits in between, her emotional scenes were fantastic and you really get chills down your spine in the scenes where she asserts her rights)

Bonham Carter: 4 (quite a limited role actually, but I thought she did a lot within them, carrying a motherly warmth as well as cold efficiency to her actions, she also showed the physical wear and tear of her character very well)

Duff: 4 (I thought within her confines she created a very compelling portrait of perhaps the most emotional of the suffragettes, and had so much energy to all her scenes.

Gleeson: 4 (verging on a 4.5, he makes the authoritarian figure into so much more than just an adversary, he adds so much character to the film in his scenes, and his interactions with Mulligan were my favourite parts of the film)

The Gift I thought was a rather surprising psychological thriller, the biggest surprise though probably was Jason Bateman who I am saving. Edgerton as a director has a fine eye, and a good ear as writer. I could see how some might take some issue with some of thing plot machinations, but they did not bother me. Edgerton knows how to really build and maintain that tension while also keeping the emotional connection always intact. I particularly loved some of the subversion that Edgerton three in such as what happens with the dog, as well as a sudden broken window late in the film. It's a strong debut and I hope Edgerton goes behind the camera again soon.

Hall - 4(I have to say Hall is always pretty much forced to be the sane centerpiece to some insanity. She's once again good at it here. It's a purposefully to the point but she does well with just realizing the straight forward nature of her character)

Edgerton - 4(It is funny how Edgerton does double duties in making Gordo a chilling villain by giving the sense of the man when he's off screen as a director, and obviously directly portraying him when he's on. Edgerton treads just the right line between disturbing and awkward with his performance keeping in question of just how off Gordo is. I especially like how there is this hollowness yet volatility that Edgerton realizes in the character as though the mistreatment has made him distant but so emotional within that distance.)

I really enjoyed The End of the Tour which really made the personal interview process incredibly compelling. I liked how, just like Wallace's own insistence, that it does not attempt to force this greater sense of importance about the two's interactions. It let's them flow very naturally and I found moments where they both just stated their love for Die Hard as interesting as their discussions on what it means to be a writer. I found the development of the relationship between the two captivating while maintaining this very honest casual feeling to the whole thing.

I'm saving Segel.

Eisenberg - 4.5(I agree with Michael McCarthy that Eisenberg's performance really works because of just how restrained it is. Eisenberg is very good though in making his "normal guy" character stay dynamic with the obviously more eccentric Wallace right there. I like the way Eisenberg plays the various roles as the interviewer at times, others as basically a jealous man at a man seemingly with more talent, other times a fascinated fan, and at times just a man who could potentially be his friend. Eisenberg finds the right balance in his own work, and also helps to amplify Segel's performance as the two really strike up a very effective chemistry that never pigeon holes itself. It instead flows in different ways changing and going back forth, and importantly always feels very natural.)

Luke: I think you remember that I told you that a Napoleon film made by Stanley Kubrick was one of the best films never made.Anyway, I managed to get names of the 10 unrealized projects. Napoleon (Kubrick)The Merchant of Venice (Welles)Kaleidoscope (Hitchcock)Marx Brothers at the U.N. (Wilder)Nostromus (Lean)Macbeth (Olivier)The Aryan Papers (Kubrick)Fantomas (Lynch)Heart of Darkness (Welles)Leningrad: The 900 Days (Leone)Rank these from most interesting to least itneresting.

Anonymous: I'd rather not say, which is the least interesting, because I like them all but my favourite's obviously Napoleon. Reasons for that is because:1. I completely love the time period itself 2. Napoleon Bonaparte is such a fascinating figure, as he conquered almost all of Continental Europe.3. In its time the technical aspects (Just like Barry Lyndon) would've been magnificent.4. I've seen the 1970 Film Waterloo with Rod Steiger which I found to be quite good, though for an epic it was too short in my opinion. It didn't do well at the box office either and to a degree, was the cause for Kubrick, to abandon the project.5. From a casting point of view, Steiger's the only one I could think of that closely resembled the man himself.

Luke: Napoleon would certainly be my favorite of those 10. However, if it was to be a trilogy, it would have to be like this:First movie: Napoleon's early years to the French Revolutionary WarsSecond movie: Napoleon's greatest victories to his downfall in RussiaThird movie: The Battle of Waterloo

Louis: What potential could you see from these groups?Bogart/Cagney/RobinsonWidmark/Mitchum/Ryan/MontgomeryGable/Powell/Lombard/HarlowHackman/Hoffman/DuvallK. Hepburn/Davis/Crawford/StanwyckPowell/Bracken/Demarest/McCreaStewart/Fonda/Peck/Cooper

Luke: Napoleon was certainly an interesting person and an amazing military commander. Attempted to conquer Russia, which Hitler would attempt to try hundreds of years later. The only ones who managed to conquer Russia were the Mongols.

Louis: Who do you think might have been a better choice for Joan D'Arc instead of Bergman? Garbo apparently wanted to play the role but like Bergman, she would have been painfully miscast and was ten years older than her.

Anonymous: It's a fairly intimate film about two gamblers down on their luck, who try to get back what they've lost. I liked the film, due to the very effective chemistry between the two leads and I have to say that Mendelsohn (Who I usually like) gives my favourite performance of his so far and I thought he was great in Animal Kingdom. It's the same with Reynolds, though I haven't seen Buried yet.

I could have loved a three parter Napoleon by Kubrick, if he cast Napoleon well. A Barry Lyndon type situation would be disastrous, I think Kubrick I think would have had to allow more emotion in order to create the dramatic thrust through three films, which I do think there is material for with Napoleon's life.

I'll be seeing Steve Jobs some time during the week.

Anonymous:

Bogart/Cagney/Robinson - (Odd that this was never the case. Likely would have been something special as long as all three had a good part)

Widmark/Mitchum/Ryan/Montgomery - (Directed by Montgomery I assume. A potentially interesting film then with perhaps Montgomery as the reserved center, with Mitchum, Ryan and Widmark giving more extroverted performances)

Gable/Powell/Lombard/Harlow - (Something special perhaps in a romantic comedy vein of course)

Hackman/Hoffman/Duvall - (It's odd that the collaboration between the three was fairly limited would have loved to see something where the three really worked on something substantial together.)

K. Hepburn/Davis/Crawford/Stanwyck - (Seems already liked they should have been in an "hag horror" film. I would not have minded seeing that actually)

Powell/Bracken/Demarest/McCrea - (As long as its Sturges, I'm in)

Stewart/Fonda/Peck/Cooper - (A Mann western perhaps, and I think there could be something interesting to mine there. Fonda as the villain though, Peck would have to stay far way from that.)

Brando/Clift/Dean/Garfield - (I've never been two keen on Garfield and I don't think he'd necessarily add much to an already potentially unwieldy trio)

Anonymous:

Although I did not care for Bergman in that film I don't think she's what sinks that film, it's the writing and directing that's really the problem which likely would have hurt any performance.

ruthiehenshallfan99:

1. The Quiet Man 2. Miracle on 34th Street3. This Land is Mine4. Sitting Pretty - 3.55. How Green Was My Valley